Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
3d 2
144 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2659
Appellants then brought this action in the United States District Court for the
District of Rhode Island for alleged violations of the collective bargaining
agreement and their civil rights, see 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, arising from the
City's failure to afford them a termination hearing. Their complaint also
asserted claims against the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge # 8 [the "Union"]
for breach of its duty of fair representation. The district court adopted the
recommended decision of a magistrate judge, and entered summary judgment
against appellants. We affirm.
Federal courts must accord a state court judgment the same preclusive effect it
would receive in the state where it was rendered. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S.
90, 96, 101 S.Ct. 411, 415, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) (Sec. 1983). Under the
Rhode Island doctrine of res judicata (claim preclusion), a final judgment on
the merits precludes later litigation of the same claim by the same parties.
Coates v. Coleman, 72 R.I. 304, 51 A.2d 81, 85 (1947). See Capraro v. Tilcon
Gammino, Inc., 751 F.2d 56, 58 (1st Cir.1985) (per curiam). A dismissal, with
prejudice, constitutes a final judgment on the merits. School Comm. of North
Providence v. North Providence Federation of Teachers, 122 R.I. 105, 404 A.2d
493, 495 (1979). As the City was a party to the state court actions, we need
only consider whether appellants had a full and fair opportunity in the state
court to litigate against the City all issues raised in the present action. Kremer v.
Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 480-81, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 1896-97, 72
L.Ed.2d 262 (1982). Appellants do not deny that they had a full and fair
opportunity to litigate their claims against the City in state court; indeed, they
admittedly chose, for strategic reasons, not to raise "the current ... issues."
Consequently, their claims against the City are res judicata.2
Affirmed.
Appellants now assert that the City violated their civil rights after the state
court judgments were entered. As this claim was not presented below, we
decline to consider it. Nieves v. University of Puerto Rico, 7 F.3d 270, 281, n.
19 (1st Cir.1993)